DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-11, and 18-20 are pending and considered in the present Office action.
Response to Amendment
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 01 May 2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
In response to applicant’s Brief (01 May 2026) submitted after the Non-Final Rejection dated 01 December 2025, this action serves as a second Non-Final rejection to the RCE request dated 16 July 2025. The rejections from the Non-Final rejection from 01 December 2025 are withdrawn in favor of new grounds based on a reinterpretation of the cited art of record. Additionally, a new ground of rejection is provided with new art.
It is first noted that Applicant’s amendment and remarks from the RCE request dated 16 July 2025 are problematic. The originally filed invention claimed a ratio of the diameter of the core part to a total diameter of a particle in a range of 0.50 to 0.85. The current amendment has narrowed the range (0.55 to 0.65) and argued unexpected results. A successful showing of unexpected results regarding a narrower range (0.55 to 0.65) than was originally claimed/taught (0.50 to 0.85) would bring forth a new matter issue, as it would show that the newly claimed range (0.55 to 0.65) is a different invention than the originally disclosed range (0.50 to 0.85). See MPEP 2163(I)(B). No new matter issue has been made at this time because arguments of unexpected results are not persuasive as set forth in the Response to Arguments section below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the prior art fails to suggest the claimed diameter ratio (i.e., “a ratio of a diameter of the core part to a total diameter of the positive electrode active material particle is 0.55 to 0.65”). Applicant concludes the rejection is based on hindsight, and there is no reasonable expectation of success (citing Stepan) because Park suggests broad diameter ranges (core diameter, total diameter), where there is an innumerable combination of values (citing Kraus and Solenis), and Park is silent on any relationship between the core diameter and the total diameter of the particle.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because Park explicitly suggests a relationship between the core diameter and total diameter of the spherical particles (see e.g., lines 574-575, page15/41, and lines 248-252, page 8/41). Park suggests the volume of the inner core is 35-95% by volume of the total positive electrode active material particle from the standpoint of maintaining discharge capacity and thermal stability. Since a relationship exists between the volume of the core and the volume of the total particle (i.e., 35-95%), a relationship necessarily exists between the diameter of the core and the diameter of the total particle provided there is a mathematical relationship between volume, radius and diameter, as demonstrated by the following equations.
Volume of a sphere, V = 4/3 π r3
r = radius; d= diameter; d= 2r, or r= d/2
rc = radius of the core; dc = diameter of the core
rt = radius of the total particle; dt = diameter of the total particle
Park suggests the inner core volume to the total particle volume is 35-95%, thus:
v
o
l
u
m
e
o
f
t
h
e
i
n
n
e
r
c
o
r
e
v
o
l
u
m
e
o
f
t
h
e
t
o
t
a
l
p
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
·
100
%
=
35
%
t
o
95
%
4
3
π
r
c
3
4
3
π
r
t
3
·
100
%
=
35
%
t
o
95
%
The ratio of the volume of the inner core to the volume of the total particle simplifies to:
r
c
3
r
t
3
=
0.35
t
o
0.95
Taking the cube root of both sides suggests a ratio of the radius of the core with respect to the radius of the total particle.
r
c
3
r
t
3
3
=
0.35
3
t
o
0.95
3
=
r
c
r
b
=
0.70
t
o
0.98
The equation can then be rewritten in terms of diameter given the mathematical relationship between radius and diameter (r=d/2):
r
c
r
b
=
d
c
2
d
t
2
, which simplifies to:
d
c
d
t
=
0.70
t
o
0.98
Thus, Park suggests a ratio of a diameter of the core part (dc) to a total diameter of the particle (dt) is 70% – 98% from the standpoint of maintaining discharge capacity and thermal stability. The ratio suggested by Park does not overlap with that claimed, but is merely close (i.e., 0.70 is close to the claimed value of 0.65).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.")
In re Brandt, 886 F.3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (the court found a prima facie case of obviousness had been made in a predictable art wherein the claimed range of "less than 6 pounds per cubic feet" and the prior art range of "between 6 lbs./ft3 and 25 lbs./ft3" were so mathematically close that the difference between the claimed ranges was virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality.). See MPEP 2144.05, I.
In this case, 0.70 is so mathematically close to 0.65 (especially considering 0.65 rounds to 0.7) that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties; since applicant has not shown the claimed range is critical/unexpected (detailed next), or that the properties at 0.70 are different than those at 0.65 to an unobvious extent, and that the results are of a significant, practical advantage (MPEP 716.02(a)), the claimed range is deemed obvious over the art.
Relevant to Claim 8, since Park suggests a relationship between the core and total particle, Park also suggests a ratio of thickness of the shell part to a radius of the particle as follows. The total diameter of the particle (dt) is equal to the sum of the diameter of the core (dc) and the diameter of the shell (ds), i.e., ds +dc = dt. After solving for dc (i.e., dc = dt - ds) and plugging it into the known relationship (i.e., dc/dt = 0.7 to 0.98, as suggested by Park, detailed above), one can calculate a ratio of the shell part diameter (ds) with respect to the total diameter of the particle (dt).
d
c
d
t
=
0.70
t
o
0.98
=
d
t
-
d
s
d
t
=
d
t
d
t
-
d
s
d
t
=
1
-
d
s
d
t
=
0.70
t
o
0.98
1
-
d
s
d
t
=
0.70
t
o
0.98
1
-
0.70
=
d
s
d
t
=
0.30
1
-
0.98
=
d
s
d
t
=
0.02
In view of the foregoing, Park suggests ds/dt = 0.02 to 0.30. Provided there is a mathematical relationship between radius and diameter (d = 2r), a ratio of a thickness of the shell part (shell radius = rs) to a radius of the positive electrode active material particle (rt) is also suggested (i.e., 2rs/2rt = rs/rt = 0.02 to 0.30). Park suggests a ratio value (i.e., 0.30) that does not overlap with that claimed (i.e., 0.35), but it is close. Applicant has not shown the claimed range (i.e., 0.35-0.45) is critical/unexpected (detailed next), or that properties at 0.35 are different than those at 0.30 to an unobvious extent, and that the results are of a significant, practical advantage (MPEP 716.02(a)); thus, the claimed range (0.35 to 0.45) is deemed obvious over Park.
The originally filed invention claimed a ratio of a diameter of the core part to a total diameter of the positive electrode active material particle is 0.50 to 0.85. Applicant has narrowed the ratio of a diameter of the core part to a total diameter of the positive electrode active material particle to 0.55 to 0.65 and argues unexpected results. Applicant’s arguments of unexpected results with respect to capacity retention, average leakage current, and charge/discharge capacity are not persuasive, and/or are insufficient in showing criticality commensurate in scope of the claimed invention to overcome obviousness based on the prior art suggestion (e.g., 0.70 (claim 1), or 0.3 (claim 8)) for the reasons detailed below.
MPEP 716.02 Allegations of Unexpected Results
Claim 1 recites a ratio diameter of the core part to a total diameter of the positive active material particle diameter is 0.55 to 0.65; the lower end of the claimed ratio diameter (0.55) suggests shell part of 0.45 and the upper end of the claimed ratio diameter (0.65) suggests the shell part is 0.35. The prior art suggests a ratio of 0.7 (detailed above, relevant to claim 1), which does not overlap with that claimed but is very close (e.g., 0.65 rounds to 0.7) such that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties; similarly, the prior art suggests a ratio of 0.3 (detailed above, relevant to claim 8), which does not overlap with that claimed but is very close such that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Absent evidence of criticality/unexpected results (e.g., results were greater than those which would have been expected from the prior art to an unobvious extent, and that the results are of a significant, practical advantage, see MPEP 716.02), the claimed range is held obvious over the prior art (MPEP 2144.05, I.).
Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986), emphasis added, see MPEP 716.02.
A greater than additive effect is not necessarily sufficient to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness because such an effect can either be expected or unexpected. Applicants must further show that the results were greater than those which would have been expected from the prior art to an unobvious extent, and that the results are of a significant, practical advantage (emphasis added), see MPEP 716.02(a).
Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention, see e.g., MPEP 716.02(c), II.
Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980), emphasis added, see MPEP 716.02(d).
To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range, MPEP 716.02(d), II., (emphasis added). In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).
In this case, applicant argues the samples outside the claimed range had “high average leakage current”, “reduced capacity retention rate”, and “low charge/discharge capacity”. Broadly, applicant’s arguments of unexpected results are not persuasive because applicant has not established that the “high” leakage current was greater than that which would have been expected from the prior art to an unobvious extent, and that the results are of a significant, practical advantage; or that the “reduced” capacity retention and “low” charge/discharge capacity was less than that which would have been expected from the prior art to an unobvious extent, and that the results are of a significant, practical advantage. More specifically, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the data, with respect to each performance characteristic, is deficient, or is expected, as detailed below.
Capacity Retention
The capacity retention data does not appear to be unexpected at the lower end of the claimed ratio diameter range (0.55) because the capacity retention just outside the claimed ratio diameter (e.g., 0.50, 0.45) is just as good as, or better than, that inside the claimed range (0.55). For example, outside the claimed range (core part:shell part of 0.50:0.50, and 0.45:0.55) the capacity retention is 96.7%, and 96.6%, respectively, while capacity retention inside the claimed range (core part:shell part of 0.55:0.45, and 0.65:0.35) is 96.8%, and 96.0%, respectively. In other words, capacity retention is not greater than expected. With respect to capacity retention, since applicant has not shown unexpected results at the lower end of the claimed range, applicant has not shown the unexpected results occur over the entire claimed ratio diameter range.
Further, with respect to capacity retention at the upper end of the claimed ratio diameter (i.e., core part 0.65, shell part of 0.35), Table 3 shows Capacity retention (%) decreases as the thickness of the shell part decreases; Example 1, having a core part:shell part of 0.65:0.35, shows a capacity retention of 96.0 % compared to Comparative Example 5, having a thicker core part and thinner shell part of 0.90:0.10, which shows a capacity retention of 89.0 %. While applicant presents additional data (i.e., Add. Ex. 1, core part:shell part of 0.75:0.25, and Add. Ex. 2, core part:shell part of 0.85:0.15), which is now considered outside the upper end of the claimed ratio diameter range in light of the amendment but originally filed as the inventive range, to fill the gap between 0.65 and 0.90, there is an insufficient number of points outside and close to the claimed range to determine criticality/unexpectedness of the upper end of the claimed range (i.e., 0.65) in view of Park’s close ratio suggestion of 0.70. The rejection reasons, based on MPEP 2144.04, I., that Park’s ratio suggestion of 0.70 is so close to the claimed ratio of 0.65 that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Since applicant has not shown the claimed range is critical/unexpected commensurate in scope of the claimed invention, or that values suggested by the prior art, e.g., 0.70, have different properties than those at 0.65 to an unobvious extent, and that the results are of a significant, practical advantage, applicant’s arguments of unexpected results with respect to capacity retention are not persuasive and the claimed range is deemed obvious in view of the prior art.
Finally, applicant presents only two data points to represent the claimed range, i.e., the endpoints (0.55 and 0.65). However, since the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range, and a sufficient number of tests should be provided both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range (MPEP 716.02(d)), two data points inside the claimed range are insufficient to see the trend of the claimed range or to determine whether the unexpected results occur over the entire claimed range; in other words, applicant should provide more data points inside the claimed range, not just the endpoints.
Average Leakage Current
Applicant’s arguments of unexpected results with respect to average leakage current are not persuasive for the same reasons as detailed under the Capacity Retention section. In short, Park’s suggestion of a ratio of 0.70 is so close to the claimed ratio of 0.65 that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (e.g., with respect to average leakage current). Since applicant has not shown a sufficient number of points close to and outside the claimed range to determine whether the values suggested by the prior art, e.g., 0.70, have different properties than those at 0.65 to an unobvious extent, and that the results are of a significant, practical advantage, applicant’s arguments of unexpected results with respect to average leakage current are not persuasive and the claimed range is deemed obvious over the prior art.
Further, leakage current is an indicator of various undesirable conditions within a battery cell such as metal dissolution leading to micro shorts (see e.g., Matsuda (US 2016/0164091), [0071]), electrolyte/electrode side reactions (see e.g., Abe (US 20160079629, of record), [0093-0098]), resistance (Nam (US 20220093920), Table 2), etc. Applicant argues the leakage current (measured at a higher temperatures of 50 °C, see instant published para. [0110]) for the examples inside the claimed range (e.g., Ex. 1 and Ex. 2) is unexpectedly improved compared to those outside the claimed range (e.g., Add. Ex. 1 and Add. Ex. 2). However, this argument is not persuasive because expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention, just as unexpected results are evidence of unobviousness thereof, MPEP 716.02(c), II.
At the lower end of the claimed range, the instant data shows the average leakage current increases as the shell gets thicker, e.g., core part:shell part 0.55:0.45 has an average leakage current of 0.06 Ah/hr compared to core part:shell part of 0.50:0.50 which has an average leakage current of 0.19 mAh/hr. However, considering average leakage current increases with resistance (evidenced by Nam (US 20220093920), see e.g., Table 2, showing the dependence of resistance increase rate (%) with average leakage current (mA)), a thicker shell, which is expected to increase resistance (as evidenced by Park (US 2017/0222221), see e.g., [0100]), would also be expected to increase the average leakage current. Thus, applicant’s arguments of unexpected results with respect to average leakage current at the lower end of the clamed range are not persuasive because the results appear to be expected, as evidenced by Nam. Provided applicant has not persuasively shown unexpected results at the lower end of the claimed range, there is no showing the unexpected results occur over the entire claimed range (MPEP 716.02(d)).
Moreover, Park suggests the volume of the inner core is 35-95% by volume of the total positive electrode active material particles, thereby suggesting the shell volume is 5-65%; core volume is not more than 95% (hence, shell volume is 5% or more) from a thermal stability standpoint, and the core volume is not less than 35% (hence, shell volume is not more than 65%) to maintain discharge capacity. As detailed already, the volume relationship can be understood in terms of core diameter and total diameter of the particle provided there is a mathematical relationship between volume, radius and diameter; thus, in terms of diameter, Park suggests a core diameter is not more than 0.98 (hence, shell diameter is 0.02 or more, or said another way shell diameter is not less than 0.02) from a thermal stability standpoint. In other words, Park appreciates controlling shell thickness (i.e., between 0.02 to 0.3), where thinner shells (i.e., shells below 0.02) are undesirable because they lead to deteriorated thermal stability. Provided thinner shells are expected to lead to deteriorated thermal stability, thicker shells are expected to improve thermal stability. Since Park suggests thermal stability deteriorates with thinner shells, and Add. Ex. 1 and Add. Ex. 2 (examples outside the claimed range) having shell parts are 0.25 and 0.15, respectively, represent examples having a thinner shell compared to thicker shells inside the claimed range (Ex. 1 and Ex. 3, shell parts of 0.65 and 0.55, respectively), one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the average leakage current at 50 °C to deteriorate for the thinner shelled samples (0.25, 0.15) because the thinner shelled samples are less able to provide thermal stability to the particle at the elevated temperatures (50 °C), as suggested by Park. In view of the foregoing, Applicant’s arguments of unexpected results at the upper end of the claimed range (core:shell 65:35) are unpersuasive considering Park’s suggestion that thicker shells (as are the samples inside the claimed range) are more thermally stable, hence lower leakage current is expected at higher temperatures. Provided applicant has not persuasively shown unexpected results at the upper end or lower end of the claimed range, there is no showing of unexpected results occur over the entire claimed range.
Finally, applicant presents only two data points to represent the claimed range, i.e., the endpoints (0.55 and 0.65). However, since the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range, and a sufficient number of tests should be provided both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range (MPEP 716.02(d)), two data points inside the claimed range are insufficient to see the trend of the claimed range or to determine whether the unexpected results occur over the entire claimed range; in other words, applicant should provide more data points inside the claimed range, not just the endpoints.
Charge capacity/Discharge capacity (mAh/g)
Applicant’s arguments of unexpected results with respect to charge capacity/discharge capacity (mAh/g) are not persuasive because the data does not appear to show unexpected results at either the upper end of the claimed ratio diameter range (0.65) or lower end of the range (0.55). Specifically, the data does not show the results were greater than those which would have been expected from the prior art to an unobvious extent, and that the results are of a significant, practical advantage, MPEP 716.02(a). The charge capacity/discharge capacity outside the upper end of the claimed range (e.g., Add. Ex. 1 (0.75), Add. Ex. 2 (0.85)) is the same as that inside the claimed range (Ex. 1 (0.65)); for example, Ex. 1 (0.65) and Add. Ex. 2 (0.75) both show charge capacity/discharge capacity (mAh/g) of 232/207. Thus, with respect to charge capacity/discharge capacity at the upper end of the claimed range, the results of the claimed invention do not appear greater than or improved, hence do not support an unexpected results argument. At the lower end of the claimed ratio diameter (0.55, Ex. 2) a charge capacity/discharge capacity (mAh/g) of 230/205 is about the same as outside the claimed range (0.50, Add. Comp. Ex. 2), which shows a charge capacity/discharge capacity (mAh/g) of 229/204; provided there is no significant change/improvement in the charge capacity/discharge capacity between the samples to an unobvious extent, and that the results are of a significant, practical advantage, there is no evidence to support unexpected results with respect to charge capacity/discharge capacity. Applicant has not shown the charge/discharge capacity is unexpected over the entire claimed range.
Moreover, as noted already for Capacity Retention and Average Leakage Current, Park’s ratio suggestion of 0.70 is so close to the claimed 0.65 that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (e.g., with respect to charge capacity/discharge capacity). Applicant has not shown a sufficient number of points outside and close to the claimed range to determine whether the values suggested by the prior art, e.g., 0.70, have different properties than those at 0.65 to an unobvious extent, and that the results are of a significant, practical advantage; thus, applicant’s arguments of unexpected results with respect to charge capacity/discharge capacity are not persuasive and the claimed range is deemed obvious over the prior art.
Finally, applicant presents only two data points to represent the claimed range, i.e., the endpoints (0.55 and 0.65). However, since the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range, and a sufficient number of tests should be provided both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range (MPEP 716.02(d)), two data points inside the claimed range are insufficient to see the trend of the claimed range or to determine whether the unexpected results occur over the entire claimed range; in other words, applicant should provide more data points inside the claimed range, not just the endpoints.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-11 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh et al. (US 2016/0218350) in view of Park et al. (KR100752703), hereinafter Noh and Park (both of record).
Regarding Claims 1, 6, 11 and 18-19, Noh teaches a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode active material (see title) comprising a core part (i.e., first interior, I) and a shell part (i.e., second interior, II) formed around the core part, wherein the core part and the shell part include a lithium composite transition metal oxide, which includes Ni and Co, and at least one or more selected from the group consisting of Mn and Al, wherein the positive electrode active material consists of a secondary particle in which primary particles (10) of the lithium composite transition metal oxide are agglomerated, a lithium ion diffusion path in the primary particle is formed toward a center of the secondary particle (see e.g., para. [0131], and Figs. 1-2 and claims 9-10).
Example 15-1 of Noh teaches a constant core (first interior (I)) of 90:05:05 with respect to Ni:Mn:Co, and a concentration gradient in the shell (second interior (II)) from 90:05:05 to 33:33:33 with respect to Ni:Mn:Co, see e.g., [0131]; thus, Noh suggests the core part comprises a Ni content of 88 mol% or more among total metal elements (e.g., 90 mol %), and the shell part has a concentration gradient such that a Ni concentration at a start point of the shell part near the core part is 30 mol% or higher than that at an end point of the shell part near a surface of the particle. That is, the shell part near the core is about 57 mol% higher than that at an end point of the shell part near a surface of the particle (90-33=57), see also paras. [0132]-[0136]). Noh’s example teaches a value (i.e., 57 mol%) that does not overlap with that claimed (30-55 mol%), but is close, hence obvious, MPEP 2144.05, I. Further, while Example 15-1, having a Ni concentration of 0.33, does not suggest the Ni concentration at the end point of the shell near the surface of the particle is 40 mol% or more, the broader disclosure of Noh suggests values that overlap with that claimed. Noh suggests the amount of Ni varies with respect to the amounts of Co and Mn in the core and shell, see e.g., [0060, 0030]. Noh suggests the core (i.e., first interior, e.g., LiNi1-(a+b)CoaMnbO2) comprises Coa where 0 ≤ a ≤ 0.4 and Mnb where 0 ≤ b ≤ 0.35; meanwhile, the shell comprises Coa where 0.07 ≤ a ≤ 0.2 and Mnb where 0.2 ≤ b ≤ 0.5; further, Table 13 shows various examples of shell compositions (e.g., 50:20:30, or 40:20:40, etc.). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382. "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."; In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969), see MPEP 2144.05, II. Thus, the broader disclosure of Noh suggests the claimed Ni:Co:Mn amounts of the shell is e.g., 0.40:0.20:0.40 (or written as 40:20:40). The modification of Ni, Co and Mn in the shell of Example 15-1 as suggested by paragraphs [0030, 0060] and table 13, suggests a core whose Ni Co, Mn values are constant at 90:5:5 and a shell having a gradient from 90:5:5 to 40:20:40. Thus, the broader disclosure of Noh suggests a Ni content in the core part is 88 mol% or more (e.g., 90 mol%), the shell has a Ni concentration gradient at a start point of the shell near the core 30 mol% or higher and 55 mol% or lower than that at an end point of the shell near the surface of the particle (e.g., 90-40 = 50 mol%), and the Ni concentration at the end point of the shell part near the surface of the particle is 40 mol% or more (e.g., 40 mol%). As another example, based on [0030, 0060], table 13, Noh suggests the shell may be e.g., Ni:Co:Mn 0.5:0.20:0.30 (which may be written as 50:20:30); in this case, a constant core of 90:5:5 and a gradient shell from 90:5:5 to 50:20:30 suggests the Ni content in the core part is 88 mol% or more (e.g., 90 mol%), the shell has a Ni concentration gradient at a start point of the shell near the core 30 mol% or higher and 55 mol% or lower than that at an end point of the shell near the surface of the particle (e.g., 90-50 = 40 mol%), and the Ni concentration at the end point of the shell part near the surface of the particle is 40 mol% or more (e.g., 50 mol%).
Noh teaches the shell part includes lithium composite transition metal oxide particles with crystal orientation radially grown in a direction from a center to the surface of the particle of the positive electrode active material (see e.g., Figs. 1, 3-5 and paras. [0017], [0053], etc.).
Noh does not suggest a ratio of a diameter of the core part to a total diameter of the positive electrode active material particle is 0.55 to 0.65. However, Park suggests the volume of the inner core is 35-95% by volume of the total positive electrode active material particle from the standpoint of maintaining discharge capacity and thermal stability, see e.g., page 8/41. Since a relationship exists between the volume of the core and the volume of the total particle (i.e., 35-95%), a relationship necessarily exists between the diameter of the core and the diameter of the total particle provided there is a mathematical relationship between volume, radius and diameter, as demonstrated in the equations under the Response to Arguments section, hence not repeated here. In short, Park suggests a ratio of a diameter of the core part to a total diameter of the particle is 0.70 from the standpoint of maintaining discharge capacity and thermal stability (see equations under the Response to Arguments section). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art a ratio of a diameter of the core part to a total diameter of a particle of the positive electrode active material is 0.70 considering discharge capacity and thermal stability. Park’s suggested ratio (0.70) does not overlap with that claimed (0.65) but is merely close such that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties; further, the prior art value (i.e., 0.70) is so mathematically close to the claimed value (i.e., 0.65 rounds to 0.70), the difference between the claimed range and that in the prior art is deem virtually negligible absent evidence of criticality/unexpected results, thereby making the claimed range obvious over the prior art (MPEP 2144.05, I.).
Relevant to Claim 8, Noh was modified by Park to suggest the ratio of a diameter of the core to the diameter of the particle, see rejection of claim 1 and the Response to Arguments section. As detailed under the Response to Arguments section, since Park suggests the ratio of a diameter of the core to the diameter of the particle, a ratio of the shell part diameter (ds) with respect to the total diameter of the particle (dt), and a ratio of a thickness of the shell part (shell radius = rs) to a radius of the positive electrode active material particle (rt), is also implied, i.e., ds/dt = 0.02 to 0.30, and ds/dt =2rs/2rt = rs/rt = 0.02 to 0.30, see detailed equations under the Response to Arguments section. Park suggests a radius ratio range (i.e., 0.30) that does not overlap with that claimed (i.e., 0.35), but it is close; hence, a prima facie case of obviousness exists and the values are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, MPEP 2144.05, I. Absent evidence the claimed range (i.e., 0.35-0.45) is critical/unexpected, or that properties at 0.35 are different than those at 0.30 to an unobvious extent, and that the results are of a significant, practical advantage (MPEP 716.02(a)), the claimed range (0.35 to 0.45) is deemed obvious over Park.
Regarding Claim 4, Noh suggests the Ni concentration in the core part is constant, see Example 15-1, para. [0131].
Regarding Claim 5, Noh suggests the shell part has a concentration gradient such that the Ni concentration is gradually decreased from the start point of the shell part to the end point of the shell part, see Example 15-1, para. [0131] where the Ni concentration decreases from 90 mol% to 40 mol% (see modification presented in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding Claim 6, as detailed under the rejection of claim 1, Noh suggests in the shell part, a Ni content is e.g., 50 to 90 mol% among the total metal elements contained in the lithium composite transition metal oxide, see Example 15-1, para. [0131] which was modified such that the Ni concentration in the shell decreases from 90 mol% to 40 mol%, or 90 mol% to 50 mol%, as suggested by [0060]
Regarding Claim 9, Noh teaches the lithium composite transition metal oxide of the core and the shell part is represented by formula I (see e.g., Example 15-1, para. [0131], Table 13, and [0030, 0060]):
PNG
media_image1.png
211
669
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, Noh further teaches a surface layer (“surface maintaining section”), in addition to the core and the shell, including a lithium composite transition metal oxide including at least one or more of Ni, Co, and Mn and a concentration is constant, see e.g., para. [0020], [0034], [0068].
Regarding Claim 20, Noh does not teach the Ni concentration in the shell gradually decreases from the start point to the endpoint at a rate of 0.1 mol%/µm to 3. mol%/µm. However, Park suggests the metal concentration in the shell gradually decreases per 0.1 µm from 0.1 mol % to 30 mol %, thereby suggesting values between 0.1 mol% per 1µm to 3 mol% per 1µm (e.g., 0.1mol%/0.1µm is equivalent to 1 mol%/1µm), with the expectation of avoiding an abrupt phase boundary, hence stabilizing the crystal structure, see e.g., page 8/41. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the rate of the Ni concentration in the shell is 0.1 mol%/µm to 3 mol%/µm with the expectation of avoiding an abrupt phase boundary, hence a stabilized crystal structure, as suggested by Park.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-11 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh et al. (US 2016/0218350) in view of Park et al. (WO 2016068594, in which US 20170222221 in used for a translation), hereinafter Noh and Park II.
Regarding Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 11 and 18-19, these claims are rejected over Noh in the same way as set forth above (i.e., Noh in view of Park), hence are not repeated here for brevity, except Park is replaced with Park II to suggest the claimed ratios of (i.e., diameter in claim 1, and radius in claim 8) which Noh does not suggest.
Specifically, Park II suggests core/shell particles in which the shell incudes lithium composite transition metal oxide particles with a crystal orientation radially grown in a direction from a center to the surface of the particle of the positive electrode active material that reduces resistance of the battery, wherein a ratio of shell thickness to the positive electrode active material radius is 0.25 to 0.7, see e.g., [0096, 0197, 0218] and Table 1, thereby suggesting a core radius/total particle radius, and core diameter/total particle diameter, of 0.3-0.75 (see Response to Arguments section for the mathematical relationships of the core/particle ratios with shell/particle ratios (diameter and radius)), from the standpoint of enhancing output and life properties, [0161, 0199, 0102]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the particles of Noh to have a ratio of a diameter of the core part to a total diameter of the particle between 0.55 to 0.65, and a ratio of a thickness of the shell part to a radius of the particle of 0.35 to 0.45, because there is an expectation of enhanced output and life properties, as suggested by Park II. Park II suggest a ratio value which overlaps with that claimed (i.e., relevant to claim 1: 0.30-0.75 overlaps with of 0.55 to 0.65; relevant to claim 8: 0.25 to 0.7 overlaps with 0.35 to 0.45). Absent evidence showing the criticality of the claimed range, the overlapping points of the prior art and claimed range are sufficient to support a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.5, I.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh and Park II, in view of Kwon et al. (WO2016175597, of record), hereinafter Kwon.
Regarding Claim 20, Noh does not suggest the Ni concentration in the shell gradually decreases from the start point to the endpoint at a rate of 0.1 mol%/µm to 3. mol%/µm. However, Kwon discloses a core shell material whose growth is controlled. Specifically, the metal concentration per 0.1 µm is 0.1 atomic% (hence 1 mol%/µm) to 30 atomic%, such that the crystal structure is stabilized and thermal stability is increased because there is no sharp phase boundary, see e.g., lines 359-391. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the rate of the Ni concentration in the shell is 0.1 mol%/µm to 3 mol%/µm, with the expectation of stabilizing crystal structure, and increasing thermal stability, as suggested by Kwon.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA KOROVINA whose telephone number is (571)272-9835. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 6 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 5712721481. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANNA KOROVINA/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights